Can Trump still impose tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling? | Donald Trump News
Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Global Tariffs
The United States Supreme Court has determined that former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are unconstitutional, issuing a 6-3 decision that found he overstepped his authority.
In the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court concluded that Trump improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose widespread tariffs. The court stated that the IEEPA does not grant the president the power to unilaterally establish such tariffs.
“Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not,” Roberts wrote. The justices emphasized that the statute was intended to allow presidential responses to specific national emergencies—such as asset freezes or transaction blocks—but not to implement major overhauls of U.S. trade policy through broad tariffs.
The ruling marks a significant legal challenge to Trump’s policy agenda, particularly as it pertains to the changes he made to the Supreme Court during his first term by appointing three justices. Trump criticized the decision, calling it “a disgrace,” as the court remanded the case back to the U.S. Court of International Trade to oversee a potential refund process for the tariffs collected.
Trump had argued that the tariffs were necessary to address six national emergencies, citing the persistent U.S. trade deficit and the surge of fentanyl-related overdoses as justification. He imposed tariffs on nearly every country to address trade deficits and specifically targeted Mexico, Canada, and China for their roles in the opioid crisis.
Economists estimate that the Trump administration collected over $130 billion in tariffs under the emergency declarations before data was last made public in December. Analysts warn that the Supreme Court ruling could lead to extended legal disputes regarding the reimbursement of those funds.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh—dissented, arguing that their colleagues’ ruling does not preclude Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under other statutory provisions. Kavanaugh noted that the court’s decision merely indicated that the president used the wrong statutory authority in this case.
Despite the setback, Trump retains other legal pathways to impose tariffs, including provisions in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974. These statutes allow for tariffs under national security concerns and in response to unfair trade practices, respectively.
In response to the ruling, Trump expressed frustration, asserting that presidents should have broad trade authority. “I can do anything I want,” he stated, emphasizing a belief that the court’s interpretation limits his ability to respond to trade issues effectively.
The Supreme Court’s decision has broader implications, potentially constraining future presidents’ use of emergency powers. Legal experts emphasize that the ruling serves as a reminder that presidential authority is not absolute, signaling a more restricted scope for unilateral action in matters of trade and national emergencies.
